The Acorn
A James Hillman book(s) report
I've been reading James Hillman’s The Alchemy of Psychology and The Souls Code lately.
Thoughts such as 'psychologization is gaslighting' have been appearing in mind. The drive to understand how the mind works, to improve myself in search of things like serenity, homeostasis, and peace is dwindling. The value of such things seems increasingly irrelevant. Perhaps I'm experiencing Hillman's work and don't quite have my thoughts formed yet. I put little stock in this. My thoughts have been moving in a Hillmanian direction for some time.
For example, Hillman's thinking does away with the predominance of the hero myth. He doesn't do away with it to an extent where there isn't a necessity to embody the hero myth on occasion; rather, it's the larger application that disposed of, the Campbellian notion that the hero myth is THE Hero Myth, foundational, cultural, irreplicable. Hillman recognizes we're living in nested and ever-changing mythologies, some of which we hardly recognize as such or place predominance on one over the rest, both paths being dangerous. Hillman represents some of my notions of isness. He does not rely on conceptuality to confirm knowledge (another kind of myth); instead, he affirms there are multiple ways of knowing, preferring to ask, what is? Or, what is not?
Are the impressions we carry of our parents what is? Or, are these impressions an invention (i.e., myth) we've elevated to reality-status? Are our personal histories representative of what is now? If so, how? If not, why invent them? For what purpose do they serve? What is their isness? Hillman believes these personal histories are where victimization, among other things, begins and ends, so if these histories are inventions, we, in fact, have been victimizing ourselves the whole time.
By taking it a step further, Hillman's Acorn theory reposits the ancient theory of the Daimon, Genius, Guardian Angel, etc., claiming that the spiritual part of our being chose the circumstances we have been born into; we have merely forgotten. Hillman openly affirms this theory as a myth, unprovable and unknowable. In other words, impossible to understand, just like our psyches. Therefore, we have no right to take issue on that basis. Instead, it should highlight why we should take issue with modern psychology, which is claiming to be "treating" something it does not understand.
The line of questioning Hillman's Acorn theory and modern psychology should be subjected to lies in the domain of isness. What is it doing to or for us now? What's its tangible effect? Does it solve problems or create new ones? Is it true even if it didn't happen? To the latter, Hillman provides a resounding yes! Because if we choose this life (personality, parents, circumstances, etc.), it's then impossible to be a victim. Everything we do and everything that happens to us is an aspect of the gestalt of our purpose in this incarnation. The image of our being. Without cause, without future. Only what is.
We choose to be victimized by the image of our being or empowered by it. The perception of causality and progress distracts us from what currently exists; they are fantasies. Granted, causality and progress are very useful fantasies. However, we become the playthings of causality and progress when we forget their fantastical nature and elevate them to reality. In such a state, we become addicted to the analysis of our childhoods and families; we may disavow free will and responsibility, we hate, we regret, and we become depressed, anxious, and trapped in our bodies.
The reason why psychologization seems increasingly like gaslighting to me is that so much of it dwells in the notions of causality and progress. Indeed, psychologization relies on the reality of psychological causality and progress forgetting the inherent fantasy at the foundation of both concepts. Are my actions and reactions really so tied to past experiences? Must I always be on some progressive path? Do I not naturally regress in some ways?
Is it wrong to exist just as I am, to be as it is?
Psychology, with it’s ruthless pathologizing, suggests yes, we can always come closer to normal, something is always abnormal, something can always be fixed, normalized, and treated. This perspective is remarkably abnormal, unnatural, inhumane, and absolutely commonplace in Western society.
When we can parse the fantastical from what contains isness, we can craft a fantastical (i.e., mythical) landscape that empowers us instead of entrapping us. We’ll never have it perfect, we can only have it as it is.